Good, drilling for more of our own oil is one of many things we need to do to help with our energy problems. Other things would be allowing new nuclear power plants to be built, working on sensable conservation plans and work towards more workable renewable energy sources then we currently have.

I'm torn on this. I don't think oil drilling will solve any problems, but it definitely has the potential to be an environmental disaster. In any case, it's a band-aid and the repubs way of making themselves look like they are trying.

Good, drilling for more of our own oil is one of many things we need to do to help with our energy problems. Other things would be allowing new nuclear power plants to be built, working on sensable conservation plans and work towards more workable renewable energy sources then we currently have.

my thoughts...meh...bush would call for more drilling...He has to make his money.

ON the note of nuclear power plants....everyone likes them...nobody wants them in their communities.

Good, drilling for more of our own oil is one of many things we need to do to help with our energy problems.

I'm not convinced that it'll be a major help, and I'd rather use it like a strategic reserve (eg, use it if there were a wide embargo on the US, for example) if necessary. Why use up our resources while others are willing to sell their resources? It's not as if they won't be able to sell their oil to other buyers and will be stuck with the stuff.

Quote

Other things would be allowing new nuclear power plants to be built, working on sensable conservation plans and work towards more workable renewable energy sources then we currently have.

Good, drilling for more of our own oil is one of many things we need to do to help with our energy problems.

I'm not convinced that it'll be a major help, and I'd rather use it like a strategic reserve (eg, use it if there were a wide embargo on the US, for example) if necessary. Why use up our resources while others are willing to sell their resources? It's not as if they won't be able to sell their oil to other buyers and will be stuck with the stuff.

Quote

Other things would be allowing new nuclear power plants to be built, working on sensable conservation plans and work towards more workable renewable energy sources then we currently have.

Agreed.

Here is the problem, it takes years to bring new sources like that online, 5-10 at least, if you want to use it as a stratigic reserve as you want, we would have to explore to find it, and have the ability to bring it online quickly, which would require drilling in the areas that are currently banned from exploration.

Here is the problem, it takes years to bring new sources like that online, 5-10 at least, if you want to use it as a stratigic reserve as you want, we would have to explore to find it, and have the ability to bring it online quickly, which would require drilling in the areas that are currently banned from exploration.

Fair enough, I guess I'd probably be ok with some limited amount of exploration, if it stops at that.

I'd rather see us drill oil than be reliant upon overseas supplies. As demand rises in other parts of the world, the more we import the more we are impacted by global supply and demand. Either way we are going to have to transition to something else, but all the environmental whining bothers me. So it's ok for other countries to risk their environments for our pleasure?

We already produce a lot of oil (second largest producer based on the most recent numbers I could find) so I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to produce more.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.Syndey: That's alright. I have both.

I'm torn on this. I don't think oil drilling will solve any problems, but it definitely has the potential to be an environmental disaster. In any case, it's a band-aid and the repubs way of making themselves look like they are trying.

It buys us time to develop and make affordable a replacement to oil.

As it is our economy will buckle before we can get anything out there researched and designed.

Good, drilling for more of our own oil is one of many things we need to do to help with our energy problems. Other things would be allowing new nuclear power plants to be built, working on sensable conservation plans and work towards more workable renewable energy sources then we currently have.

my thoughts...meh...bush would call for more drilling...He has to make his money.

ON the note of nuclear power plants....everyone likes them...nobody wants them in their communities.

This is 100% true. I work for a utility, and the main obstacle to Nuke power is communities not wanting to host them.

The thing that annoys me is that there are environmentalists who will pop up and oppose every energy alternative, even the clean ones. I saw an interview with the head of Shell who said their studies indicated that they could make wind turbines profitable and he thought that in two decades wind turbines could generate as much as 20% of our electricity if we started on it now. But he said there were already environmentalists up in arms over wind turbines, partially because they didn't want to see the transfer lines and stations built it would take to transfer the electricity to where it's needed.

You just can't win with those people.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.Syndey: That's alright. I have both.

I'm torn on this. I don't think oil drilling will solve any problems, but it definitely has the potential to be an environmental disaster. In any case, it's a band-aid and the repubs way of making themselves look like they are trying.

It buys us time to develop and make affordable a replacement to oil.

As it is our economy will buckle before we can get anything out there researched and designed.

I'm torn on this. I don't think oil drilling will solve any problems, but it definitely has the potential to be an environmental disaster. In any case, it's a band-aid and the repubs way of making themselves look like they are trying.

It buys us time to develop and make affordable a replacement to oil.

As it is our economy will buckle before we can get anything out there researched and designed.

If Congress approved development in 2008, it would take 10 years for oil production to commence

It's no more of a short-term fix than commissioning new nuclear plants would be.

There is a lot more oil out there in protected areas other then just ANWR, and some of the offshore areas could be brought on line faster then 10 years. High oils prices are hurting every part of our economy, and we need to work on BOTH sides of the problem, demand AND supply, bringing more oil production online will help.

I saw an interview with the head of Shell who said their studies indicated that they could make wind turbines profitable and he thought that in two decades wind turbines could generate as much as 20% of our electricity if we started on it now. But he said there were already environmentalists up in arms over wind turbines

i have to cry bs on this one. activists have been calling for greater use of wind energy for years now. if by "environmentalists" this guy means fat cats with beachfront property in cape cod, i respond anyone who wants to save a species to upholster his / her jaguars interior with bald eagle feathers or wear a rare colored chinchilla as a coat, is probably NOT an "environmentalist" (yes i know broad generalization, but i thought it was more funny this way )

as far as more drilling land... if anyone is interested in light research, check out how much public land has been ceded for exploration thus far. also check out how much has undergone any type of development, or hell even exploratory drilling. then reconsider if now is the time to cede more land. (you MAY have to go to transcripts of committee hearings - which may be at a local university library - which may push this little project out of the realm of light, by requiring more effort than google - but maybe not im not sure)

I saw an interview with the head of Shell who said their studies indicated that they could make wind turbines profitable and he thought that in two decades wind turbines could generate as much as 20% of our electricity if we started on it now. But he said there were already environmentalists up in arms over wind turbines

i have to cry bs on this one. activists have been calling for greater use of wind energy for years now. if by "environmentalists" this guy means fat cats with beachfront property in cape cod, i respond anyone who wants to save a species to upholster his / her jaguars interior with bald eagle feathers or wear a rare colored chinchilla as a coat, is probably NOT an "environmentalist" (yes i know broad generalization, but i thought it was more funny this way )

as far as more drilling land... if anyone is interested in light research, check out how much public land has been ceded for exploration thus far. also check out how much has undergone any type of development, or hell even exploratory drilling. then reconsider if now is the time to cede more land. (you MAY have to go to transcripts of committee hearings - which may be at a local university library - which may push this little project out of the realm of light, by requiring more effort than google - but maybe not im not sure)

Actually some environmentalists are opposed to wind turbines because of problems with birds getting killed by them, so opposition to them is somewhat more widespread then just fatcats on cape cod with beachfront property.

Drilling for oil sounds nice and like a short fix, except it takes time to get everything working. Even if 10 years is an exaggeration, even 5 years can be too long given the way our economy looks. I would rather see those 5 years being used to find some way to get us away from using oil, or at least cut demand for it enough that prices can come back down or stabilize.

I would really like to see someone explore other methods like solar power and wind turbines to create more energy. I live in Florida, Most of the homes here would benefit from having solar panels. Same with the southwest states. They could create a ton of power. Other natural methods could be used wherever it makes sense. The problem is everyone is looking for the perfect solution, and it doesn't exist. It's going to take an entire overhaul of our culture and lifestyle for this to happen.

Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.

I saw an interview with the head of Shell who said their studies indicated that they could make wind turbines profitable and he thought that in two decades wind turbines could generate as much as 20% of our electricity if we started on it now. But he said there were already environmentalists up in arms over wind turbines

i have to cry bs on this one. activists have been calling for greater use of wind energy for years now. if by "environmentalists" this guy means fat cats with beachfront property in cape cod, i respond anyone who wants to save a species to upholster his / her jaguars interior with bald eagle feathers or wear a rare colored chinchilla as a coat, is probably NOT an "environmentalist" (yes i know broad generalization, but i thought it was more funny this way )

as far as more drilling land... if anyone is interested in light research, check out how much public land has been ceded for exploration thus far. also check out how much has undergone any type of development, or hell even exploratory drilling. then reconsider if now is the time to cede more land. (you MAY have to go to transcripts of committee hearings - which may be at a local university library - which may push this little project out of the realm of light, by requiring more effort than google - but maybe not im not sure)

Actually some environmentalists are opposed to wind turbines because of problems with birds getting killed by them, so opposition to them is somewhat more widespread then just fatcats on cape cod with beachfront property.

Don't forget they kill bats, also! What I don't get is most 'Republican' arguments that I see (Steve Forbes being the most recent) in opposition to wind power bring up the bird/bat argument most. That doesn't make sense to me, unless he's got a phat crib in Cape Cod or something.

Actually, the problem with wind farms is the same problem with every other utility project - NIMBY. Take the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in NY (Google it for images). It produces a fair amount of energy (320MW - a new coal plant would produce a little over twice that much) in a high-wind area. Yet the noise for some residents (there seems to be a frequency that can resonate pretty loudly) as well as the visual pollution of these 20-story turbines poking up all over the place has some residents in an uproar. Hell, if I bought a house out there to enjoy the peaceful mountain living, I wouldn't want those things sticking up all over the place either.

Make a proposal to put those out in the Hamptons and you'd be laughed out of town. So there is a NIMBY factor with wind turbines. Hell, there's a NIMBY factor with solar. I remember hearing about a story where some guy had to cut back his redwood trees because his neighbor installed solar panels over his hot tub and the trees were blocking the solar panels. In CA, the law says that solar panels take priority and the trees had to be cut back and may have to be cut down.

So, to be fair, there are a number of issues that must be confronted when dealing with any utility project - even a green one. And the NIMBY effect is a pretty major issue.

Actually some environmentalists are opposed to wind turbines because of problems with birds getting killed by them, so opposition to them is somewhat more widespread then just fatcats on cape cod with beachfront property.

id be curious to see the number of birds killed each year by prop airplanes. then id be curious why no one cares about those. then id start to wonder what the real issue is here.

Actually some environmentalists are opposed to wind turbines because of problems with birds getting killed by them, so opposition to them is somewhat more widespread then just fatcats on cape cod with beachfront property.

id be curious to see the number of birds killed each year by prop airplanes. then id be curious why no one cares about those. then id start to wonder what the real issue is here.

What about windows? I came home one day and saw a bloody, greasy smear on my window. Sure enough there was a dead bird under it. Windows are killers!

What about windows? I came home one day and saw a bloody, greasy smear on my window. Sure enough there was a dead bird under it. Windows are killers!

wow blood and all huh? thats one hell of an impact. usually it just breaks their poor little necks (or stuns them pretty terribly!) that barb wire around the edges of your frames much really keep away the prowlers! maybe someday well be able to replace outdated windows with bird friendly plasma tech. now replacing outdated props... im sure if anyone cared that might be a bit easier

Actually, the problem with wind farms is the same problem with every other utility project - NIMBY. Take the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in NY (Google it for images). It produces a fair amount of energy (320MW - a new coal plant would produce a little over twice that much) in a high-wind area. Yet the noise for some residents (there seems to be a frequency that can resonate pretty loudly) as well as the visual pollution of these 20-story turbines poking up all over the place has some residents in an uproar. Hell, if I bought a house out there to enjoy the peaceful mountain living, I wouldn't want those things sticking up all over the place either.

Make a proposal to put those out in the Hamptons and you'd be laughed out of town. So there is a NIMBY factor with wind turbines. Hell, there's a NIMBY factor with solar. I remember hearing about a story where some guy had to cut back his redwood trees because his neighbor installed solar panels over his hot tub and the trees were blocking the solar panels. In CA, the law says that solar panels take priority and the trees had to be cut back and may have to be cut down.

So, to be fair, there are a number of issues that must be confronted when dealing with any utility project - even a green one. And the NIMBY effect is a pretty major issue.

That's why I support OIBBY (Only In Blackadar's Back Yard) for everything. Solves everything!

Seriously, though, NIMBY is a major problem, even among people who cry about wanting alternative energy pursued more aggressively. Solar and Wind Turbines sound cool until you put them nearby for a lot of people.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.Syndey: That's alright. I have both.

I could understand this line of thinking if there was some sort of worldwide shortage of oil, but there isn't. There is no supply problem! Heck, considering the current price of oil I would say that there's tons of oil to go around for everyone! This makes about as much sense as the summer gas tax break.

I think most people will be up to the idea of having these things close to them, if the benefits outweigh the problems. The main concern I would have would be if prices of homes drop because of the NIMBY effect, and how much. I don't know about many drawbacks to these alternative power sources, but from the few that I have read the only one that sounds like a big deal is the noise made by the wind farms that Blackadar mentioned.

I would imagine that if people in the surrounding areas have to put up with inconveniences, many of them will be fine with it if they get a break on electricity or something like that. People will put up with stuff if it saves them a couple bucks.

Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.

There is a lot more oil out there in protected areas other then just ANWR, and some of the offshore areas could be brought on line faster then 10 years. High oils prices are hurting every part of our economy, and we need to work on BOTH sides of the problem, demand AND supply, bringing more oil production online will help.

I agree that we need more oil production. However, I cited that article because it discussed how long it would take to get oil production going on land. I have no idea how long it would take to construct an oil drilling platform on water...but just since it's on water, I'd assume that's no easy task. Do you know how long it would take? You said:

Quote

some of the offshore areas could be brought on line faster then 10 years.

Which indicates you know...I'd appreciate a link or something so I could read about it.

The thing that annoys me is that there are environmentalists who will pop up and oppose every energy alternative, even the clean ones. I saw an interview with the head of Shell who said their studies indicated that they could make wind turbines profitable and he thought that in two decades wind turbines could generate as much as 20% of our electricity if we started on it now. But he said there were already environmentalists up in arms over wind turbines, partially because they didn't want to see the transfer lines and stations built it would take to transfer the electricity to where it's needed.

You just can't win with those people.

The error is to treat "environmentalists" as a unified and undifferentiated group. Some are mere NIMBYs. Some are mere regional environmentalists. Some are nuts. Similarly, there is an error in treating all proposed projects opposed by "environmentalists" as equivalent.

But say you want to pave over a large ditch. Many environmentalists loudly oppose paving over the Grand Canyon so you can build an SUV parking lot. Your neighbors, who recycle, object to you paving over a large ditch on your property. That is not a valid grounds for throwing up your hands and saying "what's the point of listening to environmentalists at all? They object to EVERYTHING."